sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Oct 11, 2019 22:00:20 GMT
Think you are refering to the other Bradford loan With the other Bradford loan the trade was buy at 90% and sell at 97.5% (or keep until it redeems, of which there is a good chance it will be in the next week or so). I think that was someones careless error mistaking the loan part when listing this loan at a discount. Now I have been rushing to the site! Thankfully it wasn't me selling the wrong Bradford at 90%. I agree that the other Bradford loan is a better bet.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Oct 12, 2019 16:08:00 GMT
I wish I was "provoking the sheep" Unfortunately a dirty title in the property (two titles purchased together) was purchased for GBP 100,000 and TC / MT loaned GBP 2,750,000 against that dirty title and about GBP 2m of the loan money does not appear to have been accounted for in the latest filed company accounts. The valuer and estate agent were not given full details of the dirty title (including option to purchase in favour of a previous owner and unilateral and other notices which all predate MT/TC charges).
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,894
Likes: 11,115
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 12, 2019 17:56:06 GMT
I wish I was "provoking the sheep" Unfortunately a dirty title in the property (two titles purchased together) was purchased for GBP 100,000 and TC / MT loaned GBP 2,750,000 against that dirty title and about GBP 2m of the loan money does not appear to have been accounted for in the latest filed company accounts. The valuer and estate agent were not given full details of the dirty title (including option to purchase in favour of a previous owner and unilateral and other notices which all predate MT/TC charges). Is the missing £2m not covered by the WIP as indicated in the note to the recent accounts?
Creditors £2.8m (ie MT/TC) WIP £2.3m (ie the recent of the £4.5m 'purchase' price injected by the borrower.
Layman interpretation so may well be totally wrong
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Oct 13, 2019 1:14:51 GMT
In the jan 2018 company accounts see accounting policy 1.3 Stocks, representing land and property developments, are stated at the lower of cost and estimated selling price less costs to complete and sell. So the lower figure is the cost. The company paid GBP 100,000 to purchase the site and by january 2018 may have paid out another 200,000 in planning and other fees so total cost of the work in progress say around GBP 300,000 and cash in hand a negative gbp 87 the other gbp 2m (difference between gbp 2,349,894 stated work in progress and the around GBP300,000 possibly spent) has not been spent by the company on the property it must have been taken out of the company but is not shown as taken out on the accounts.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 13, 2019 8:45:31 GMT
In the jan 2018 company accounts see accounting policy 1.3 Stocks, representing land and property developments, are stated at the lower of cost and estimated selling price less costs to complete and sell. So the lower figure is the cost. The company paid GBP 100,000 to purchase the site and by january 2018 may have paid out another 200,000 in planning and other fees so total cost of the work in progress say around GBP 300,000 and cash in hand a negative gbp 87 the other gbp 2m (difference between gbp 2,349,894 stated work in progress and the around GBP300,000 possibly spent) has not been spent by the company on the property it must have been taken out of the company but is not shown as taken out on the accounts. Given the level of detail in your claims recently on this loan, I am surprised that MT have not either refuted them or suspended the loan.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 13, 2019 9:09:20 GMT
In the jan 2018 company accounts see accounting policy 1.3 Stocks, representing land and property developments, are stated at the lower of cost and estimated selling price less costs to complete and sell. So the lower figure is the cost. The company paid GBP 100,000 to purchase the site and by january 2018 may have paid out another 200,000 in planning and other fees so total cost of the work in progress say around GBP 300,000 and cash in hand a negative gbp 87 the other gbp 2m (difference between gbp 2,349,894 stated work in progress and the around GBP300,000 possibly spent) has not been spent by the company on the property it must have been taken out of the company but is not shown as taken out on the accounts. This is mistaken. We know that the consideration paid for the site was £100k in cash PLUS the assumption of certain liabilities of the vendor (which was in administration). The vendor's administrator said that "the overall value of the sale to the Administration is in the region of £7m due to the assumption of certain of the Company’s liabilities". We do not know what was actually paid, or is yet to be paid, to settle those liabilities, although I am sure that at least some of them will have been heavily discounted. Having said that, we do know that the consideration recorded at the Land Registry was £2m. This implies that £1.9m was paid upfront by the company to settle liabilities that were treated for stamp duty purposes as part of the cost of the property. Hence the £2.35m WIP balance in the company’s accounts is simply explained as cost £2m (as per Land Registry) plus fees and incidental costs to date. Whether there are any remaining unsettled liabilities is not clear, although there is little or nothing in the accounts for them. Any that remain may, perhaps, have been treated as future commitments to be included in the accounts (and added to the cost of the property) only when incurred. Edit at 12:18: To the extent that such future commitments exist, they would detract from the value of the property today.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Oct 13, 2019 9:39:34 GMT
What is the date of the GPB 1m each sale price recorded at the land registry to which you refer? When you look you will see this is the record of the previous sale and because the two titles were sold together the purchase price to MRDO as not recorded at HM land registry. Even if you were correct, and you are not lenders were told that the land was being purchased for GBP 4.5m and lenders would be provided with a first charge on a clean title with the borrower putting in GBP 1.75m of their own money on a first loss basis. I and other lenders would not have invested if the true position had been revealed in the information pack and the valuation would not have been the same as the valuation clearly stated that it was based on a clean title and gbp 4.5m purchase price.
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Oct 13, 2019 10:21:48 GMT
Why did the borrower pay 3.25% back interest on 30 Jul 2019?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 13, 2019 10:35:35 GMT
I can confirm from my own investigations that the £1m price stated on each of the two titles that form the security relates to 2010/11 transactions not 2017 when the borrowing company is recorded as the proprietor.
I can also confirm that both titles have unilateral notices ahead of the MT/TC charges.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 13, 2019 10:38:04 GMT
Why did the borrower pay 3.25% back interest on 30 Jul 2019? If the combined brainpower of TC/MT lenders, many of whom are finance industry professionals, are unable to understand this 'project' there is a chance the borrower may not either.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 13, 2019 10:49:31 GMT
What is the date of the GPB 1m each sale price recorded at the land registry to which you refer? When you look you will see this is the record of the previous sale and because the two titles were sold together the purchase price to MRDO as not recorded at HM land registry. Even if you were correct, and you are not lenders were told that the land was being purchased for GBP 4.5m and lenders would be provided with a first charge on a clean title with the borrower putting in GBP 1.75m of their own money on a first loss basis. I and other lenders would not have invested if the true position had been revealed in the information pack and the valuation would not have been the same as the valuation clearly stated that it was based on a clean title and gbp 4.5m purchase price. You were the source of my £2m Land Registry figure. I think it was in a post on the TC forum in April 2018, which you have recently edited, but it is also in your post p2pindependentforum.com/post/262655/thread, which you have not [yet?] edited (and which I replied to, quoting it in full). I don't know the truth of the matter, but the accounts are consistent with a consideration (including liabilities settled) of this amount. How the £4.5m reconciles with the £2m (or to various other numbers in the documents) is anyone's guess and I can add nothing to what I said on the two forums at that time.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Oct 13, 2019 11:31:28 GMT
Thank you I have corrected the previous inaccuracy The facts remain lenders were told the site was being purchased for gbp 4.5m and only gbp 100k was paid if lenders had been told the truth in the information pack the loan would not have been filled/drawndown.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 13, 2019 13:19:06 GMT
Thank you I have corrected the previous inaccuracy The facts remain lenders were told the site was being purchased for gbp 4.5m and only gbp 100k was paid if lenders had been told the truth in the information pack the loan would not have been filled/drawndown. It is simply not true that only £100k was paid. The consideration was £100k cash plus the assumption of certain liabilities of the vendor (which was in administration). The vendor's administrator said that "the overall value of the sale to the Administration is in the region of £7m due to the assumption of certain of the Company’s liabilities". These facts are indisputable. We do not know what the company has actually paid, or has yet to pay, to settle the assumed liabilities, nor whether any of the assumed liabilities remain outstanding. However, at present I see no reason to disbelieve the figures in the company's accounts. These are consistent with the amount actually paid to date (including for the settlement of assumed liabilities) being of the order of £2m. There are plenty of genuine grounds for concern, including what happened to the difference between £4.5m and £2m. The difference might be accounted for by as-yet unsettled liabilities assumed that have been treated as future off balance sheet commitments (and which would need to be taken into account in valuing the property), but this is pure speculation.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 13, 2019 14:54:04 GMT
Update on MT platform (nothing to report) Thanks. The 'nothing to report' part of your post is very helpful. Saves me rushing to the site. For someone no longer in this loan I've managed today to buy at 88% and sell at 90% But this is far from normal or healthy. I've made a few quid but at some risk. someone on this site a long time ago compared this to picking up pennies in front of a steamroller. In fact no real difference to gambling on horses etc on Betfair, back as the odds drift out, lay off as the the odds come back in, real risk of losing stake. Is this really the image the p2p sector wishes to portray ?
But this is far from normal or healthy. One of the more profound statements made on this forum.
MoneyThing , my only suggestion, FWIW, to try to swing the SM back to being closer to investing than gamblling is to persuade the borrower to provide a short cashflow statement since the drawdown of the loan. Doesn't have to have many line items, just enough to see what has been spent (Cash consideration on site purchase, settlement of liabilities inherited, planning costs, finance costs). Whilst this won't directly address the current value of the site, it may help in constructing informed estimates of the current value. What concerns me is that SM trades are essentially being conducted on the basis of information in the original info pack pdf and VR, which its close to impossible to reconcile with subsequent information recorded at LR and CH.
As this post of a couple of days ago (and the one it quotes) makes clear some people are basing purchase decisions on this loan, at least in part, on the fact that MT has not suspended the loan from trade. Whilst MT would no doubt politely say "thats not fair", in reality they do shoulder responsiibility for deciding whether the information provided to lenders is adequate to assess the current risk of the loan. I contend that the evidence of the last few days posts on this thread suggests otherwise.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 746
Likes: 737
|
Post by eeyore on Oct 13, 2019 17:50:02 GMT
............... MoneyThing , my only suggestion ....... is to persuade the borrower to provide a short cashflow statement since the drawdown of the loan. ............... I agree, but how much would we trust such a borrower-provided statement? For example, how much trust would we have in anything provided by the borrower of the Newcastle-under-Lyme loan? Unless the document has been audited (by someone we can trust), how much reliance can we place on it? Sadly, it all demonstrates the level of regulation in the P2P industry.
|
|